1: \documentstyle[preprint,pra,aps]{revtex}

2: \begin{document}

3: \draft

4: \title{\bf  Precise calculation of parity nonconservation

5: in cesium and test of the standard model}

6: \author{V.A. Dzuba, V.V. Flambaum, and J.S.M. Ginges}

7: \address{School of Physics, University of New South Wales,

8: Sydney 2052, Australia}

9: \date{\today}

10: \maketitle

11: 

12: \tightenlines

13: 

14: %************************************************************

15: \begin{abstract}

16: We have calculated the $6s-7s$ parity nonconserving (PNC) E1 transition

17: amplitude, $E_{PNC}$, in cesium.

18: We have used an improved all-order technique in the calculation

19: of the correlations and have included all significant contributions

20: to $E_{PNC}$.

21: Our final value

22: $E_{PNC}=0.904\Big( 1\pm 0.5\%\Big) \times 10^{-11}iea_{B}(-Q_{W}/N)$

23: has half the uncertainty claimed in old calculations

24: used for the interpretation of Cs PNC experiments.

25: The resulting nuclear weak charge $Q_{W}$ for Cs deviates by

26: about $2\sigma$ from the value predicted by the standard model.

27: 

28: \end{abstract}

29: \vspace{1cm}

30: 

31: \pacs{PACS: 11.30.Er, 12.15.Ji, 32.80.Ys, 31.30.Jv}

32: %************************************************************

33: 

34: \section{Introduction}

35: 

36: There is an ongoing discussion on whether measurements of parity

37: nonconservation (PNC) in atoms can be used to study new physics beyond the

38: standard model (for a history of PNC in atoms, see, e.g.,

39: the book \cite{khriplovich} or review \cite{bouchiat}).

40: Such a possibility relies on the accuracy of

41: the measurements and the theoretical analysis.

42: The best accuracy so far has been achieved for the cesium atom.

43: In 1997, the Boulder group measured the PNC amplitude in cesium

44: to an accuracy of 0.35\% \cite{wood97}. The best calculations available

45: at that time were published by the Novosibirsk group in 1989 \cite{dzuba89}

46: and the Notre Dame group in 1990 \cite{blundell90}.

47: Both works claimed an accuracy of 1\%.

48: This claim of 1\% accuracy was based in part on the comparison

49: of the experimental and theoretical values relevant to the PNC amplitude

50: (energies, electromagnetic E1 transition amplitudes, hyperfine structure).

51: Later, new, more accurate measurements (see, e.g. \cite{rafac,bennett99})

52: led to better agreement between theory and experiment for the

53: E1 transition amplitudes.

54: This allowed Bennett and Wieman to suggest that the actual

55: accuracy of the PNC calculations in cesium is 0.4\% \cite{wieman99}.

56: With this accuracy, the value of the nuclear weak charge $Q_{W}$

57: of the cesium atom which follows from the measurements \cite{wood97} and

58: calculations \cite{dzuba89,blundell90} deviates from the standard model

59: value by $2.5\sigma$ \cite{wieman99}.

60: The implications of this deviation for physics beyond the standard model

61: have been examined in several works \cite{RC,JR,EL}.

62: 

63: This result generated many recent works revisiting calculations of

64: PNC in cesium.

65: Derevianko \cite{derevianko00} demonstrated that the contribution

66: of the Breit interaction to the PNC amplitude $E_{PNC}$ (-0.6\%) is

67: substantially larger than previous estimates and reduces the deviation

68: from the standard model. The Breit contribution was neglected in \cite{dzuba89}

69: and underestimated in \cite{blundell90}. The result of Derevianko was

70: later confirmed in independent calculations \cite{harabati,kozlov01}.

71: A new many-body calculation of  $E_{PNC}$ was performed by

72: Kozlov {\it et al.} \cite{kozlov01}.

73: It was calculated in second-order in the residual interaction

74: with averaged screening factors.

75: The result is in excellent agreement with similar calculations by

76: Blundell {\it et al.} \cite{blundell90} and differs by less

77: than 0.5\% from the more complete (``all-orders'') calculations

78: \cite{dzuba89,blundell90}.

79: 

80: Radiative corrections to the weak charge

81: of order $\alpha$ were calculated a long time ago

82: in \cite{marciano} (see also \cite{lynnbed}).

83: However, there are important ``strong field'' radiative corrections

84: of order $Z\alpha ^{2}$ and $Z^2\alpha ^{3} \ln^2(\lambda/R_n)$

85: which have recently been considered in

86: \cite{milstein} (note that the latter correction is larger).

87: Here $\lambda$ is the electron Compton wavelength, and

88: $R$ is the nuclear radius.

89: The main contribution to $E_{PNC}$ was found to be about $0.4\%$.

90: This contribution originates from the radiative corrections to the

91: weak matrix element due to the Uehling potential

92: (recently this contribution was calculated numerically in \cite{johnson01}).

93: 

94: Among other corrections considered

95: one should mention a correction for the neutron distribution

96: \cite{derevianko} which is quite small: -0.2\% of $E_{PNC}$.

97: 

98: Note that Breit, Uehling, and neutron skin corrections are

99: smaller than the uncertainty of 1\% claimed for the calculated $E_{PNC}$

100: amplitude in works \cite{dzuba89,blundell90}. This uncertainty was

101: mostly associated with the accuracy of the calculations of correlation

102: corrections. Therefore, there is a very important question as to

103: whether calculations of correlations were, or can be, performed to

104: better than 1\% accuracy.

105: The analysis of the accuracy  involves a comparison of

106: calculated and measured atomic quantities

107: {\em and} some additional  ``internal'' tests, such as, e.g.,

108: checking the stability of the results against variation of certain

109: parameters.

110: Comparison with experiment alone is an important

111: but not sufficient part of the analysis. This is especially true when

112: better accuracy is claimed for calculations performed many years

113: ago and all the details can hardly be reconstructed. In our view,

114: the only reliable way to improve the accuracy is to do the calculations

115: again, trying to improve the method and numerical procedures at every

116: stage, and repeat the analysis of the accuracy.

117: That is what we do in the present paper.

118: 

119: We have made several important improvements to the

120: method developed in 1989 \cite{dzuba89}. First, we calculated a new series

121: of higher-order correlation diagrams which account for the effect of

122: screening of the Coulomb interaction in the exchange correlation diagram.

123: In our earlier work \cite{dzuba89} the screening effect was calculated

124: for the direct correlation diagram only, while screening factors

125: were used for the exchange diagram.

126: The values of these factors were found by looking at the effect of

127: screening in the direct diagram; however, the effect

128: of screening in the exchange diagram may differ.

129: In our present work we calculate the effect of screening for both diagrams.

130: 

131: Second, we have made significant improvements to the numerical procedures

132: at every stage of the calculations. This involves, for instance,

133: using a more dense coordinate grid, including more terms

134: into the summation over virtual states,

135: and restoring the lower Dirac component of the wave function everywhere.

136: We have also used a more accurate nuclear charge distribution.

137: 

138: Our result for the PNC amplitude in cesium

139: (without Breit, radiative, and neutron distribution corrections)

140: $E_{PNC}=0.908\Big( 1\pm 0.5\% \Big) \times 10^{-11}iea_{B}(-Q_{W}/N)$

141: coincides exactly with the old result

142: \cite{dzuba89} but has a much smaller uncertainty.

143: ($N$ is the neutron number.)

144: To avoid misunderstanding, we should note

145: that particular contributions to this value are slightly different

146: in the old and the new calculations (for example, the Hartree-Fock

147: value of the amplitude has changed by 0.3\%).

148: Therefore, we are indeed talking about a new result.

149: 

150: We have also calculated the contributions of the

151: Breit interaction (-0.61\%) and the Uehling potential (0.40\%)

152: to $E_{PNC}$. There is very good agreement between different calculations

153: for these values and they can be considered well-established.

154: The resulting value for the PNC amplitude is

155: $E_{PNC}=0.906\Big( 1\pm 0.5\% \Big)\times 10^{-11}iea_{B}(-Q_{W}/N)$.

156: The neutron-distribution correction,

157: estimated as $(-0.2 \pm 0.1)\%$, reduces our final value to

158: $E_{PNC}=0.904\Big( 1\pm 0.5\% \Big) \times 10^{-11}iea_{B}(-Q_{W}/N)$.

159: 

160: %************************************************************

161: \section{Method of calculation}

162: \label{sec:method}

163: 

164: The method we have used here is very similar to that used in our 1989

165: work \cite{dzuba89}.

166: As a zero approximation we use the relativistic Hartree-Fock

167: method. The perturbation in our approach is the residual

168: interaction - the difference between the exact and Hartree-Fock

169: Hamiltonians.

170: For summing of diagrams we use a combination of the ``correlation potential

171: method'' \cite{dzuba87}, which is a way to treat correlations by introducing

172: a single-electron operator (correlation potential) $\hat \Sigma$,

173: and ``perturbation theory in the screened electron residual interaction''

174: \cite{dzuba89energy,dzuba89e1hfs}, which is used to calculate $\hat \Sigma$.

175: The method is an all-order technique, in terms of treating correlations,

176: and is not a version of the popular coupled-cluster approach.

177: The dominating sequences of higher-order correlation diagrams

178: correspond to real physical phenomena like collective screening of the

179: Coulomb interaction between electrons and the hole-particle interaction.

180: They are included in all orders in our technique.

181: An important strong point of the method is that its complexity does not go

182: beyond the calculation of the correlation potential $\hat \Sigma$.

183: When $\hat \Sigma$ is ready, the calculation of energies and

184: matrix elements is relatively simple.

185: $\hat{\Sigma}$ is used to calculate single-electron Brueckner orbitals.

186: The calculation of matrix elements with Brueckner orbitals

187:  already includes most of the correlations.

188: There are additional ``non-Brueckner'' contributions to matrix elements such

189: as structural radiation and normalization of many-electron states. These

190: contributions are small for $s$ and $p$ states and in most cases they

191: can be  expressed in terms of derivatives of $\hat \Sigma$.

192: This makes the calculation of hyperfine structure, transition amplitudes,

193: etc. similar to the calculation of energies.

194: 

195: The method works very well for alkaline atoms. The calculated

196: energy levels and transition amplitudes deviate by a fraction

197: of a percent from experiment.

198: The hyperfine structure (hfs) of $s$ and $p$ states has an

199: accuracy of better than 1\%.

200: 

201: \subsection{Correlation potential method}

202: 

203: The Cs atom has one electron above closed shells. Therefore, it is natural

204: to start the calculations from the relativistic Hartree-Fock (RHF) method

205: in the $\hat{V}^{N-1}$ approximation (one electron in the field of the

206: $N-1$ core electrons).

207: The single-electron RHF Hamiltonian is

208: \begin{equation}

209: \label{eq:RHF}

210: \hat{H}_{0}=c\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}\cdot \hat{{\bf p}}+(\beta -1)c^{2}-

211: Z\alpha/r+\hat{V}^{N-1} \ ,

212: \end{equation}

213: $\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}$ and $\beta$ are Dirac matrices and

214: $\hat{{\bf p}}$ is the electron momentum.

215: For cesium the accuracy of the RHF energies is of the order of $10\%$.

216: 

217: To improve the accuracy one needs to include correlations.

218: In order to do so we introduce a ``correlation potential'' $\hat \Sigma$

219: \cite{dzuba87}.  $\hat \Sigma$ is a single-electron energy-dependent

220: non-local operator defined in such a way that its average value over

221: a single-electron state $a$ is the correlation correction to the energy

222: of this state,

223: \begin{equation}

224: \label{eq:S}

225: 	\Delta \epsilon_a = \langle a | \hat \Sigma(\epsilon_a) | a \rangle.

226: \end{equation}

227: The calculation of $\hat \Sigma$ will be described in the next section.

228: $\hat \Sigma$ is added to the Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian to calculate

229: single-electron states of the external electron,

230: \begin{equation}

231: \label{eq:Br}

232: 	(\hat H_0 + \hat \Sigma - \epsilon) \psi^{\rm Br} = 0.

233: \end{equation}

234: There are two major benefits from inclusion of $\hat \Sigma$ in the equations.

235: First, the iteration of $\hat \Sigma$ is an important higher-order effect

236: which gives a significant contribution to the energy and wave function.

237: Second, by solving Eq.~(\ref{eq:Br}) we obtain single-electron orbitals

238: which are called Brueckner orbitals which already include correlations.

239: These orbitals can then be used to calculate matrix elements for

240: hfs, PNC, etc.

241: 

242: When appropriate higher-order diagrams are included into the calculation

243: of $\hat \Sigma$, as will be described in the next section, by solving

244: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Br}) we obtain energies of $s$ and $p$ states of alkaline

245: atoms with an accuracy of about 0.1\%. This is a radical improvement

246: over the 10\% accuracy of the Hartree-Fock approximation.

247: 

248: To accurately calculate the interaction of external fields with atomic

249: electrons one needs also to take into account the core polarization effect.

250: We do this using the time-dependent Hartree-Fock (TDHF) method

251: (which is equivalent to the random-phase approximation with exchange).

252: In this method every single-electron orbital has the form

253: \[ \psi_n + \delta \psi_n \ , \] where $\psi_n$ is the unperturbed

254: Hartree-Fock orbital (or Brueckner one for states above the core)

255: and $\delta \psi_n$ is a correction to the orbital caused by

256: the external field.

257: To find $\delta \psi_n$ one needs to solve the equations

258: \begin{equation}

259: \label{eq:RPA}

260: 	(\hat H_0 - \epsilon)\delta \psi_n = - (\delta \epsilon +

261: 	\hat h + \delta \hat V_h) \psi_n.

262: \end{equation}

263: Here $\hat h$ is the operator of the external field, $\delta \hat V_h$

264: is the correction to the Hartree-Fock potential due to modification

265: of the core states in the external field, and

266: $\delta \epsilon$ is the correction to the energy.

267: 

268: Equations (\ref{eq:RPA}) are first solved self-consistently for core

269: states to obtain  $\delta \hat V_h$. Then Brueckner orbitals are used

270: to calculate matrix elements between states of the external electron

271: \begin{equation}

272: \label{eq:me}

273: 	M_{ab} = \langle \psi^{\rm Br}_b |\hat{h} +\delta \hat{V}_{h}|

274: 	\psi^{\rm Br}_a \rangle.

275: \end{equation}

276: This expression includes most of the correlations and already gives hfs

277: and transition amplitudes in alkaline atoms to an accuracy close to 1\%.

278: There are also contributions arising from the normalization of states and

279: structural radiation \cite{dzuba87}. When these contributions are included

280: the accuracy improves.

281: 

282: \subsection{Calculation of the correlation potential}

283: 

284: We use the Feynman diagram technique to calculate the correlation potential

285: $\hat \Sigma$. The main reason for this is that this technique is more

286: convenient for inclusion of higher-order diagrams. The drawback of it

287: is the necessity to integrate over frequencies numerically.

288: 

289: In the lowest (second) order in the residual Coulomb interaction,

290: $\hat \Sigma$ is given by the direct and exchange diagrams in

291: Fig.~\ref{fig:Sigma2}.

292: The corresponding mathematical expressions are

293: \begin{eqnarray}

294: 	\hat \Sigma^{(2)}_{\rm d} (\epsilon, r_i, r_j) &=&

295: 	\sum_{nm} \int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} G_{ij}(\epsilon+\omega)

296: 	\hat Q_{im}\hat \Pi_{mn}(\omega)\hat Q_{nj} \label{eq:sigma2d},\\

297: 	\hat \Sigma^{(2)}_{\rm ex} (\epsilon, r_i, r_j) &=&

298: 	\sum_{mn} \int \int \frac{d\omega_1}{2\pi}\frac{d\omega_2}{2\pi}

299: 	\hat Q_{in}G_{im}(\epsilon+\omega_1)G_{mn}(\epsilon+\omega_1+\omega_2)

300: 	\hat Q_{mj}G_{nj}(\epsilon+\omega_2) \label{eq:sigma2ex},

301: \end{eqnarray}

302: where summation over $m$ and $n$ is a numerical implementation of the

303: integration over $r_m$ and $r_n$, $\hat Q$ is the Coulomb interaction,

304: $G$ is the Hartree-Fock Green function, $\hat \Pi$ is the

305: polarization operator:

306: \begin{eqnarray}

307: 	&\hat Q_{ij} = \frac{e^2}{|r_i - r_j|}, \label{eq:q}\\

308: 	&G_{ij}(\epsilon) =

309: 	\sum_{\gamma} \frac{|\gamma\rangle_i\langle\gamma|_j}

310: 	{\epsilon-\epsilon_{\gamma}+i\delta} +

311: 	\sum_{n} \frac{|n\rangle_i\langle n|_j}

312: 	{\epsilon-\epsilon_{n}-i\delta}, \ \ \delta \rightarrow 0,

313: 	\label{eq:gf}\\

314: 	&\hat \Pi_{ij}(\omega)=\int \frac{d\alpha}{2\pi}G_{ij}(\omega+\alpha)

315: 	G_{ij}(\alpha) =\sum_n\psi_n^{\dagger}\big(

316: 	G_{ij}(\epsilon_n+\omega)+G_{ij}(\epsilon_n-\omega)\big)\psi_n.

317: \label{eq:po}

318: \end{eqnarray}

319: Here $|n \rangle$ are core RHF states and $|\gamma \rangle$ are RHF excited

320: states;

321: $\delta$ shows the pole passing rule for integration over frequencies.

322: (Let us remind the reader that we use the Feynman diagram

323: technique to treat a basically non-relativistic correlation problem, e.g.,

324: our polarization operator (\ref{eq:po}) represents the polarization

325: of the atomic core, not the vacuum.)

326: 

327: The integration over frequencies in expressions (\ref{eq:sigma2d}) and

328: (\ref{eq:sigma2ex})

329: can easily be performed analytically, reducing the diagrams in

330: Fig.~\ref{fig:Sigma2}

331: to the four usual Goldstone diagrams presented, e.g.,

332: in work \cite{dzuba87}.

333: When higher-orders are included in $\hat \Sigma$,

334: only the integration for the polarization operator (\ref{eq:po}) can still be

335: done analytically. The other integrals have to be calculated numerically.

336: 

337: As was demonstrated in our earlier work \cite{dzuba89energy},

338: the most important higher-order correlation contributions to

339: $\hat \Sigma$ come from screening

340: of the Coulomb interaction between atomic electrons by other electrons

341: and from the hole-particle interaction in the polarization operator (another

342: important higher-order effect is the iteration of $\hat \Sigma$, which is

343: included separately, by inserting $\hat \Sigma$ into equations for

344: single-electron orbitals; see previous section).

345: 

346: The hole-particle interaction in the polarization operator $\hat \Pi$

347: (Fig.~\ref{fig:h-p}) is included by replacing the $\hat{V}^{N-1}$

348: Hartree-Fock potential

349: in the calculation of $\hat \Pi$ by the $\hat{V}^{N-2}$ potential. Since

350: the calculation involves iterations of the RHF equation, the hole-particle

351: interaction is included in all orders.

352: 

353: The screening of the Coulomb interaction is a more complicated effect.

354: The corresponding higher-order diagrams can be obtained from the second-order

355: diagrams (Fig.~\ref{fig:Sigma2}) by the insertion of a series of hole-particle

356: loops into every Coulomb line. Therefore, instead of,

357: e.g., one direct diagram (Fig.~\ref{fig:Sigma2}) we have an infinite chain of

358: higher-order diagrams (Fig.~\ref{fig:Sigmad}). One can see that an internal

359: part of this chain (before the integration over $\omega$) forms a matrix

360: geometric progression

361: \[

362: 	\hat \Pi + \hat \Pi \hat Q \hat \Pi +

363: 	\hat \Pi \hat Q \hat \Pi \hat Q \hat \Pi + \dots

364: \]

365: The sum of this progression is

366: \begin{equation}

367: 	\hat \pi(\omega)=

368: \hat \Pi(\omega)\big[ 1-\hat Q \hat \Pi(\omega)\big]^{-1},

369: \label{eq:screenedpi}

370: \end{equation}

371: and can be called the ``screened polarization operator''. Screening

372: of the Coulomb interaction in the direct correlation diagram is included by

373: replacing the unscreened polarization operator $\hat \Pi$ in

374: Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigma2d}) by the screened polarization operator $\hat \pi$:

375: \begin{eqnarray}

376: \label{eq:sigmad}

377: 	\hat \Sigma_{\rm d} (\epsilon, r_i, r_j) &=&

378: 	\sum_{nm} \int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} G_{ij}(\epsilon+\omega)

379: 	\hat Q_{im}\hat{\pi}_{mn}(\omega)\hat Q_{nj}.

380: \end{eqnarray}

381: 

382: It is convenient also to introduce an operator of the screened

383: Coulomb interaction

384: \begin{equation}

385: 	\widetilde Q(\omega)=\hat Q (1-\hat Q \hat{\pi}(\omega))^{-1}.

386: \label{eq:screenedQ}

387: \end{equation}

388: This expression can be obtained in a similar way to the screened

389: polarization  operator $\hat \pi$ by summing a matrix geometric progression

390: corresponding to the chain of diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:screeninghp}.

391: An expression for the direct correlation diagram can be re-written in

392: terms of $\widetilde Q$:

393: \begin{eqnarray}

394: \label{eq:sigmade}

395: 	\hat \Sigma_{\rm d} (\epsilon, r_i, r_j) &=&

396: 	\sum_{nm} \int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} G_{ij}(\epsilon+\omega)

397: 	\hat Q_{im}\hat{\Pi}_{mn}(\omega)\widetilde Q_{nj}(\omega).

398: \end{eqnarray}

399: The screened Coulomb interaction operator $\widetilde Q$ can also

400: be used to include screening into the exchange correlation diagram.

401: This is done by substituting $\hat Q \rightarrow \widetilde Q(\omega)$ in

402: equation~(\ref{eq:sigma2ex})

403: \begin{eqnarray}

404: \label{eq:sigmaex}

405: 	&&\hat \Sigma_{\rm ex} (\epsilon, r_i, r_j) = \nonumber \\

406: 	&&\sum_{mn} \int \int \frac{d\omega_1}{2\pi}\frac{d\omega_2}{2\pi}

407: 	\widetilde Q_{in}(\omega_1)G_{im}(\epsilon+\omega_1)

408: 	G_{mn}(\epsilon+\omega_1+\omega_2)

409: 	\widetilde Q_{mj}(\omega_2)G_{nj}(\epsilon+\omega_2).

410: \end{eqnarray}

411: 

412: The second-order correlation potential with the

413: hole-particle interaction and screening of the Coulomb interaction

414: included in all orders is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Sigmahpsc}.

415: 

416: In our 1989 work \cite{dzuba89} we used an approximate expression for the

417: screened Coulomb interaction in the exchange correlation diagram

418: \begin{equation}

419: \label{eq:fk}

420: 	\widetilde Q_k \approx f_k \hat Q_k,

421: \end{equation}

422: where $k$ is the multipolarity of the Coulomb interaction and $f_k$ is the

423: screening factor. In this expression the dependence of the screening on

424: frequency is neglected. The values of the screening factors were obtained by

425: calculating the direct diagram with and without screening.

426: The use of average screening factors which do not depend on frequency

427: significantly simplified the calculation of the exchange diagram. Like

428: in pure second-order, the Goldstone diagram technique and direct summation

429: over a complete set of single-electron states were used. No integration

430: over frequencies was needed.

431: 

432: In the present work we do the full-scale calculation of the exchange diagram

433: using Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigmaex}). This makes the method totally

434: {\it ab initio} since no screening factors are used. The drawback of

435: the method is the need to do double integration over frequencies numerically

436: (note that there is only a single numerical integration over frequencies

437: in the direct diagram).

438: 

439: \subsection{PNC amplitude}

440: 

441: To calculate the PNC $6s-7s$ amplitude in Cs one needs to include

442: two external fields acting on the atomic electrons:

443: the weak field of the nucleus and the electric dipole

444: (E1) field of the photon.

445: The nuclear spin-independent weak interaction of an electron with

446: the nucleus is

447: \begin{equation}

448: \label{eq:h_w}

449: \hat{H}_{W}=\frac{G_{F}}{2\sqrt{2}}\rho (r)Q_{W}\gamma _{5}

450: \end{equation}

451: where $G_{F}$ is the Fermi constant, $Q_{W}$ is the weak charge of the

452: nucleus, $\gamma _{5}$ is a Dirac matrix, and $\rho (r)$ is the nuclear

453: density. The E1 Hamiltonian is

454: \begin{equation}

455: \label{eq:E1}

456: 	\hat H_{E1} = - {\bf d \cdot E}(e^{-i\omega t}+e^{i\omega t}),

457: \end{equation}

458: where ${\bf d}$ is the dipole moment operator.

459: 

460: In the TDHF method, a single-electron wave function is

461: \begin{equation}

462: \label{eq:wf}

463: 	\psi = \psi_0 + \delta \psi + Xe^{-i\omega t}+Ye^{i\omega t}+

464: 	\delta Xe^{-i\omega t}+ \delta Ye^{i\omega t},

465: \end{equation}

466: where $\delta \psi$ is the correction due to the weak interaction

467: acting alone, $X$ and $Y$ are corrections due to the photon field

468: acting alone, and $\delta X$ and $\delta Y$ are corrections due

469: to both fields acting simultaneously.

470: These corrections are found by solving self-consistently the system

471: of the TDHF equations for the core states

472: \begin{eqnarray}

473: 	(\hat{H}_{0}-\epsilon)\delta \psi &=&

474: 	-(\hat{H}_{W}+\delta \hat{V}_{W})\psi, \label{eq:WE1:1}\\

475: 	(\hat{H}_{0}-\epsilon -\omega)X &=&

476: 	-(\hat{H}_{E1}+\delta \hat{V}_{E1})\psi, \label{eq:WE1:2}\\

477: 	(\hat{H}_{0}-\epsilon +\omega)Y&=&

478: 	-(\hat{H}_{E1}^{\dagger}+\delta \hat{V}_{E1}^{\dagger})\psi,

479: 	\label{eq:WE1:3}\\

480: 	(\hat{H}_{0}-\epsilon -\omega)\delta X &=&

481: 	-\delta \hat{V}_{E1}\delta \psi

482: 	-\delta \hat{V}_{W}X

483: 	-\delta \hat{V}_{E1W}\psi, \label{eq:WE1:4}\\

484: 	(\hat{H}_{0}-\epsilon +\omega)\delta Y&=&

485: 	-\delta \hat{V}_{E1}^{\dagger}\delta \psi

486: 	-\delta \hat{V}_{W}^{\dagger}Y

487: 	-\delta \hat{V}_{E1W}^{\dagger} \psi,\label{eq:WE1:5}

488: \end{eqnarray}

489: where $\delta \hat{V}_W$ and $\delta \hat{V}_{E1}$ are corrections to the

490: core potential due to the weak and E1 interactions, respectively,

491: and $\delta \hat{V}_{E1W}$ is the correction to the core potential

492: due to the simultaneous action of the weak field and the electric field

493: of the photon.

494: 

495: The TDHF contribution to $E_{PNC}$ between the states $6s$ and $7s$

496: is given by

497: \begin{equation}

498: \label{eq:TDHF}

499: E_{PNC}^{TDHF}=\langle \psi _{7s}|\hat{H}_{E1}+\delta \hat{V}_{E1}|

500: \delta \psi _{6s}\rangle +

501: \langle \psi _{7s}|\hat{H}_{W}+\delta \hat{V}_{W}|

502: X _{6s}\rangle +

503: \langle \psi _{7s}|\delta \hat{V}_{E1W}|\psi _{6s}\rangle  \ .

504: \end{equation}

505: The corrections $\delta \psi_{6s}$ and $X_{6s}$ are found by solving

506: the equations~(\ref{eq:WE1:1}-\ref{eq:WE1:2}) in the field of the

507: frozen core (of course, the amplitude (\ref{eq:TDHF}) can instead

508: be expressed in terms of corrections to $\psi _{7s}$).

509: 

510: If we use Brueckner orbitals instead of RHF orbitals to calculate

511: the PNC amplitude in Eq.~(\ref{eq:TDHF}) we include all-orders

512: in $\hat{\Sigma}$ contributions to $E_{PNC}$.

513: However, the correlation potential is energy-dependent,

514: $\hat{\Sigma}=\hat{\Sigma}(\epsilon)$, which means that $\hat \Sigma$

515: operators for the $6s$ and $7s$ states are different.

516: We should consider the proper energy-dependence at least in first-order

517: in $\hat \Sigma$ (higher-order corrections are small and the proper

518: energy-dependence is not important for them).

519: The first-order in $\hat{\Sigma}$ corrections to $E_{PNC}$ are

520: presented diagrammatically in Fig.~\ref{fig:pncdom}.

521: We can write these as

522: \begin{equation}

523: \label{eq:pnc-cor}

524: \langle \psi _{7s}|\hat{\Sigma}_s(\epsilon_{7s})|\delta X_{6s}\rangle

525: +\langle \delta\psi _{7s}|\hat{\Sigma}_p(\epsilon_{7s})|X_{6s}\rangle

526: +\langle \delta Y_{7s}|\hat{\Sigma}_s(\epsilon_{6s})|\psi_{6s}\rangle

527: +\langle Y_{7s}|\hat{\Sigma}_p(\epsilon_{6s})|\delta \psi_{6s}\rangle \ .

528: \end{equation}

529: The non-linear in $\hat{\Sigma}$ contribution can be found by subtracting

530: from the all-orders result the first-order value found in the same method.

531: 

532: The correlation corrections to $E_{PNC}$ we have considered so far

533: are usually called ``Brueckner-type'' corrections.

534: (In this case the external field interacts with the external electron

535: lines.) There are also contributions to $E_{PNC}$ in which the

536: external field acts inside the correlation potential

537: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:pncint}).

538: Those diagrams in which the E1 interaction occurs in the internal

539: lines are known as ``structural radiation'',

540: while those in which the weak interaction occurs in the internal lines are

541: known as the ``weak correlation potential''.

542: There is another second-order correction to the amplitudes which arises

543: from the normalization of states \cite{dzuba87}.

544: The structural radiation, weak correlation potential, and

545: normalization contributions are suppressed by the small parameter

546: $E_{\rm ext}/E_{\rm core}\sim 1/10$, where  $E_{\rm ext}$ and

547: $E_{\rm int}$ are excitation energies of the external and core electrons,

548: respectively.

549: 

550: We have also included a correction to $E_{PNC}$ due to the Breit interaction.

551: We calculated this in a way similar to the earlier work \cite{harabati}.

552: The main difference is that in the present calculations we have also

553: included the Breit contribution to the last term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:TDHF}).

554: This makes the calculations more consistent but doesn't change the result

555: significantly.

556: 

557: We postpone the analysis of radiative corrections until

558: Section~\ref{sec:rad}.

559: 

560: %************************************************************

561: \section{$6s-7s$ PNC amplitude}

562: \label{sec:results}

563: 

564: The results of our calculation for the  $6s-7s$ PNC amplitude

565: are presented in Table~\ref{tab:pnci}.

566: Notice that the time-dependent Hartree-Fock value gives a

567: contribution to the total amplitude of about $98\%$.

568: The point is that there is a strong cancellation of the

569: correlation corrections to the PNC amplitude.

570: The stability of the PNC amplitude compared to other

571: quantities in which the correlation corrections are large

572: will be discussed in more detail in Section~\ref{sec:accuracy}.

573: Notice that the values do not differ significantly from our 1989 results

574: (compare the 1989 final result $0.908\times 10^{-11}iea_{B}(-Q_{W}/N)$

575: with ``Subtotal'' of Table~\ref{tab:pnci} for the current calculation).

576: The new series of higher-order diagrams and higher numerical accuracy

577: of the current work has therefore not changed the previous result

578: (note, however, that particular contributions are slightly different).

579: 

580: The mixed-states approach has also been performed in

581: \cite{blundell90} and \cite{kozlov01} to determine the PNC amplitude

582: in cesium.

583: However, in these works the screening of the

584: electron-electron interaction was included in a simplified way.

585: In \cite{blundell90} empirical screening factors were placed before

586: the second-order correlation corrections $\hat{\Sigma}^{(2)}$ to fit the

587: experimental values of energies.

588: Kozlov {\it et al.} \cite{kozlov01} introduced screening factors

589: based on average screening factors calculated for the Coulomb

590: integrals between valence electron states.

591: The results obtained by these groups

592: (without the Breit interaction, i.e., corresponding to the

593: Subtotal of Table~\ref{tab:pnci})

594: are $0.904$ \cite{blundell90} and $0.905$ \cite{kozlov01}.

595: To be sure that we understand the difference between these values and

596: our value, we performed a pure second-order

597: (i.e., using $\hat{\Sigma}^{(2)}$) calculation and fitted the energies

598: (as was done in \cite{blundell90}) and reproduced their result, $0.904$.

599: 

600: In the work \cite{blundell90} a calculation using the

601: sum-over-states method was also performed.

602: In the sum-over-states approach the $6s-7s$ PNC amplitude

603: is expressed in the form

604: \begin{equation} \label{sum}

605: E_{PNC}=\sum _{n} \Big(

606: \frac{\langle 7s |\hat{H}_{W}|np\rangle \langle np|\hat{H}_{E1}|6s \rangle}

607: {E_{7s}-E_{np}} +

608: \frac{\langle 7s |\hat{H}_{E1}|np\rangle \langle np|\hat{H}_{W}|6s \rangle}

609: {E_{6s}-E_{np}} \Big) \ .

610: \end{equation}

611: The authors of reference \cite{blundell90} include single, double, and

612: selected triple excitations into their wave functions.

613: Note, however, that even if wave functions of $6s$, $7s$, and intermediate

614: $np$ states are calculated exactly

615: (i.e., with all configuration mixing included)

616: there are still some missed contributions in this approach.

617: Consider, e.g., the intermediate state $6p\equiv 5p^{6}6p$.

618: It contains an admixture of states $5p^{5}ns6d$:

619: $\widetilde{6p}=5p^{6}6p + \alpha 5p^{5}ns6d+...$.

620: This mixed state is included into the  sum (\ref{sum}).

621: However, the sum (\ref{sum}) must include all many-body states

622: of opposite parity.

623: This means that the state $\widetilde{5p^{5}ns6d}=

624: 5p^{5}ns6d- \alpha 5p^{6}6p+...$ should also be included into

625: the sum. Such contributions to $E_{PNC}$ have never

626: been estimated directly within the sum-over-states approach.

627: However, they are included into our mixed-states calculation.

628: The result of the sum-over-states approach, 0.909,

629: is very close to the result of the mixed-states approach, 0.908.

630: It is important to note that the omitted higher-order many-body corrections

631: are different in these two methods.

632: This may be considered as an argument that the omitted many-body corrections

633: in both calculations are small.

634: Of course, here we assume that the omitted many-body corrections to both

635: values (which, in principle, are completely different) do not

636: ``conspire'' to give exactly the same magnitude.

637: 

638: Therefore we will take $0.908$ for the value of $E_{PNC}$

639: (Subtotal of Table~\ref{tab:pnci}) as this corresponds

640: to the most complete mixed-states calculation

641: and is in agreement with the sum-over-states calculation of

642: reference \cite{blundell90}.

643: 

644: With Breit, our result becomes $0.902\times 10^{-11}iea_{B}(-Q_{W}/N)$.

645: This correction is in agreement with

646: \cite{derevianko00,harabati,kozlov01}.

647: 

648: We use the two-parameter Fermi model for the proton and neutron distributions:

649: \begin{equation}

650: \rho (r)=\rho _{0}\Big[ 1+\exp [(r-c)/a] \Big] ^{-1}\ ,

651: \end{equation}

652: where $t=a(4\ln 3)$ is the skin-thickness,

653: $c$ is the half-density radius, and

654: $\rho _{0}$ is found from the normalization condition $\int \rho dV=1$.

655: In 1989 the thickness and half-density radius for the proton

656: distribution were taken to be $t_{p}=2.5~{\rm fm}$ and

657: $c_{p}=5.6149~{\rm fm}$ (corresponding to a root-mean-square

658: (rms) radius $\langle r_{p}^{2}\rangle ^{1/2}=4.836~{\rm fm}$).

659: In this work we have used improved parameters

660: $t_{p}=2.3~{\rm fm}$ and $c_{p}=5.6710~{\rm fm}$

661: ($\langle r_{p}^{2}\rangle ^{1/2}=4.804~{\rm fm}$) \cite{fricke95}.

662: This changes the wave functions slightly,

663: leading to a very small correction to the PNC amplitude

664: of $0.08\%$ ($0.0007$).

665: (This is in agreement with a simple analytical estimate:

666: the factor accounting for the change in the electron density

667: is $\sim (4.804/4.836)^{-Z^{2}\alpha ^{2}}\sim 0.1\% \ $.)

668: This correction has already been included into the TDHF value.

669: 

670: In the work \cite{dzuba89} we used the proton distribution in the

671: weak interaction Hamiltonian (Eq.~(\ref{eq:h_w})).

672: In the current work we have found the small correction to

673: $E_{PNC}$ which arises from taking the (poorly understood)

674: neutron density in Eq.~(\ref{eq:h_w}).

675: We use the result of Ref. \cite{r_{np}} for the difference

676: $\Delta r_{np}=0.13(4)~{\rm fm}$

677: in the root-mean-square radii of the neutrons

678: $\langle r_{n}^{2}\rangle ^{1/2}$ and protons

679: $\langle r_{p}^{2}\rangle ^{1/2}$.

680: We have considered three cases which correspond to the same value of

681: $\langle r_{n}^{2}\rangle$: (i) $c_{n}=c_{p}$, $a_{n}>a_{p}$;

682: (ii) $c_{n}>c_{p}$, $a_{n}>a_{p}$; and (iii) $c_{n}>c_{p}$, $a_{n}=a_{p}$

683: (using the relation $\langle r_{n}^{2}\rangle \approx \frac{3}{5}c_{n}^{2}

684: +\frac{7}{5}\pi ^{2}a_{n}^{2}$).

685: We have found that $E_{PNC}$ shifts from $-0.18\%$ to $-0.21\%$

686: when moving from the extreme $c_{n}=c_{p}$ to the extreme $a_{n}=a_{p}$.

687: Therefore, $E_{PNC}$ changes by about $-0.2\%$ ($-0.0018$)

688: due to consideration of the neutron distribution.

689: This is in agreement with Derevianko's estimate,

690: $-0.19(8)\%$ \cite{derevianko}.

691: 

692: In the next section we discuss the radiative corrections to

693: $E_{PNC}$. The dominating contribution comes from the Uehling potential and

694: increases the amplitude by 0.4\%.

695: 

696: Therefore, we have

697: \begin{equation}

698: E_{PNC}=0.9041 \times 10^{-11}iea_{B}(-Q_{W}/N)

699: \end{equation}

700: as our central point for the PNC amplitude.

701: The error will be estimated in Section~\ref{sec:accuracy}.

702: 

703: %*****************************************************************

704: \section{QED-type radiative corrections to energy levels,

705: wave functions, and the PNC amplitude}

706: \label{sec:rad}

707: 

708: The radiative corrections to the weak charge $Q_W$ have been

709: calculated for the free electron. However, an electron in a heavy

710: atom is bound, and this produces additional radiative

711: corrections proportional to $\alpha (Z \alpha)^n$,

712: $n=1,2,...$. Recently such corrections were considered

713: by Milstein and Sushkov \cite{milstein}. They found that

714: the most important are corrections enhanced by

715: the large parameter $\ln(\lambda/R)$, where $\lambda=\hbar/mc$

716: is the electron Compton wavelength and $R$ is the nuclear

717: radius. This type of correction arises from the radiative

718: corrections to the electron wave function near the nucleus.

719: In this region the $s$-wave and $p_{1/2}$-wave (lower Dirac component)

720: electron densities are singular, $|\psi(r)|^2 \sim r^{-Z^2\alpha^2}$.

721: The radiative corrections modify the potential at small distances

722: $r<\lambda$, ${\tilde V }(r)= -Z \alpha (1+\delta)/r$.

723: Correspondingly, the electron wave functions change,

724: $|\psi(r)|^2 \sim r^{-Z^2\alpha^2 (1 +\delta)^2}$ for $r<\lambda$.

725: This gives the radiative correction factor for the electron

726: density inside the nucleus,

727: \begin{equation}

728: \label{psirad}

729: \frac{|\psi(R)|^2}{|\psi(\lambda)|^2} \sim \Big( \frac{\lambda}{R}\Big)

730: ^{Z^2\alpha^2 2\delta}=\exp \Big( 2\delta Z^2\alpha^2 \ln(\lambda /R) \Big)

731: \ .

732: \end{equation}

733: For the Uehling (vacuum polarization) potential

734: $\delta \sim \alpha \ln(\lambda /r)$ \cite{berestetskii}.

735: This gives an additional power of the large  parameter $\ln(\lambda / R)$.

736: This led Milstein and Sushkov \cite{milstein} to conclude that the

737: Uehling potential gives the dominating radiative correction

738: to $E_{PNC}$, $\sim  Z^2\alpha^3 \ln^2(\lambda/ R)$.

739: Numerical calculations of the Uehling potential contribution

740: have been performed in \cite{johnson01} and in the present work.

741: This radiative correction increases $E_{PNC}$ by 0.4\%.

742: 

743: Milstein and Sushkov \cite{milstein} demonstrated that there are no other

744: radiative corrections which are enhanced by  $\ln^2(\lambda /R)$.

745: However, any correction to the potential with nonzero

746: $\delta(R) \sim \alpha$ gives a correction to the electron density

747: $\sim  Z^2\alpha^3 \ln (\lambda /R)$. There are also corrections

748: $\sim  Z^2\alpha^3 \ln (Z^2\alpha^2)$ which originate from the

749: shift of the energy levels (Lamb shift). We briefly discuss

750: these corrections below.

751: 

752: Let us start our discussion from the radiative corrections to energy

753: levels.

754: The calculation of the shift can be divided into two parts:

755: one in which the electron interaction with virtual photons of

756: high-frequency are considered, and one in which

757: virtual photons of low-frequency are considered.

758: 

759: In the high-frequency case the external field

760: (the strong nuclear Coulomb field) need only be included

761: to first-order.

762: In this case the contributions to the Lamb shift arise

763: from the diagrams presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:rad}.

764: The contribution of the Uehling potential (Fig.~\ref{fig:rad}(a))

765: to the Lamb shift is very small.

766: The main contribution comes from the vertex correction

767: (Fig.~\ref{fig:rad}(b)).

768: (In the case of a free electron the vertex diagrams give the electric

769: $f(q^{2})$ and magnetic $g(q^{2})$ form factors.)

770: The perturbation theory expression for $f(q^2)$ contains an

771: infra-red divergence and requires a low-frequency

772: cut-off parameter $\kappa$ - see, e.g., \cite{berestetskii}.

773: Assuming $q^2 \ll m^2 c^2$, the high-frequency contribution to the

774: Lamb shift can be presented as a potential given by the following

775: expression \cite{berestetskii}

776: \begin{eqnarray}

777: \delta \Phi ({\bf r})

778: &=&\Big[ \delta \Phi _{f}+\delta \Phi _{U}\Big] +\delta \Phi _{g}\nonumber \\

779: &=&\frac{\alpha \hbar ^{2}}{3\pi m^{2}c^{2}}\Big(

780: \ln \frac{m}{2\kappa} +\frac{11}{24}-\frac{1}{5}\Big)

781: \Delta \Phi ({\bf r})-

782: i\frac{\alpha \hbar}{4\pi mc}\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}\cdot

783: \mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}\Phi ({\bf r}) \ .

784: \end{eqnarray}

785: For the Coulomb potential, $\Delta \Phi =-4\pi Ze\delta ({\bf r})$.

786: Here the last long-range term ($\delta \Phi _{g}$) comes from

787: the anomalous electron magnetic moment ($g(0)$);

788: the infra-red cut-off parameter $\kappa$ appears from the electric

789: form factor $f(q^{2})$.

790: This term with the large $\ln \frac{m}{2\kappa}$ gives the dominant

791: contribution to the Lamb shift of $s$-levels.

792: The infra-red divergence for $\kappa \rightarrow 0$ indicates the

793: importance of the low-frequency contribution for this term.

794: 

795: If we go beyond the approximation

796: $q^{2}<<m^{2}c^{2}$, the term $\delta \Phi _{f}$ should be

797: associated with a non-local self-energy operator

798: ${\hat \Sigma}_{\rm rad} ({\bf r},{\bf r}',E)$ with typical values

799: $|{\bf r}-{\bf r}'|\lesssim \frac{\hbar}{mc}$

800: and $r\sim r' \lesssim \frac{\hbar}{mc}$.

801: We need this operator in a simple limit, $E<<mc^{2}$.

802: Matrix elements of ${\hat \Sigma}_{\rm rad} ({\bf r},{\bf r}',0)$

803: depend only on the electron density near the origin. Therefore,

804: we can express the Lamb shift of the external electron state in a

805: neutral atom in terms of the known Lamb shift

806: of highly excited states in hydrogen-like ions. To implement this

807: scheme  we can approximate

808:  ${\hat \Sigma}_{\rm rad} ({\bf r},{\bf r}',0)$

809:  by a two-parametric $(A,b)$ potential

810: \begin{equation} \label{param}

811: \delta \Phi _{f}=-A\frac{\alpha}{\pi} r {\rm e}^{-b\frac{mc}{\hbar}r}\Phi \ ,

812: \end{equation}

813: where the factor $r$ is introduced to remove the singularity at $r=0$.

814: (We have also performed the calculation using the potential

815: $\delta \Phi _{f}$ without this factor $r$.

816: The results for the energy levels are the same.)

817: The parameters $A$ and $b$ in $\delta \Phi _{f}$ can be found from the

818: fit of the Lamb-shift of the high Coulomb levels $3s$, $4s$, $5s$ and

819: $3p$, $4p$ and $5p$ (in one-electron ions) which were calculated as

820: a function of the nuclear charge $Z$ in Refs. \cite{mohr}.

821: We have checked that $A_s=180$, $A_p=90$ and $b=1$ fit all these

822: Lamb shifts quite accurately

823: (for the potential without the factor $r$ we have found

824: $A_s=1.17$ and $A_p=1.33$).

825: The anomalous magnetic moment contribution is

826: \begin{equation}

827: \delta \Phi _{g}=-i\frac{\alpha \hbar}{4\pi mc}\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}

828: \cdot \mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}\Phi \ .

829: \end{equation}

830: The Uehling potential for a finite nucleus is given by \cite{fullerton76}

831: (in atomic units: $\hbar =m=e=1$, $\alpha =1/c$)

832: \begin{equation}

833: \delta \Phi _{U}=-\frac{2\alpha ^{2}}{3r}\int _{0}^{\infty}dx~

834: x\rho(x)\int _{1}^{\infty}dt~\sqrt{t^{2}-1}

835: \Big(

836: \frac{1}{t^{3}}+\frac{1}{2t^{5}}\Big)

837: \Big(

838: {\rm e}^{-2t|r-x|/\alpha} -{\rm e}^{-2t(r+x)/\alpha} \Big)    \ ,

839: \end{equation}

840: where $\rho (x)$ is the nuclear charge density.

841: It is more convenient to use a simpler formula for

842: $\delta \Phi _{U}$ for $r\geq R$,

843: \begin{eqnarray}

844: &&\delta \Phi _{U}(r)= \Phi (r)\frac{\alpha ^{4}}{8\pi R^{3}}

845: \int _{1}^{\infty}dt~ \sqrt{t^{2}-1}

846: \Big(

847: \frac{1}{t^{5}}+\frac{1}{2t^{7}}\Big)

848: {\rm e}^\frac{-2tr}{\alpha}I(x)  \ , \\

849: &&I(x)=-{\rm e}^{x}+{\rm e}^{-x}+x{\rm e}^{x} +x{\rm e}^{-x} \ ,

850: \qquad x=2tR/\alpha \ ,

851: \end{eqnarray}

852: and take

853: $\frac{\delta \Phi _{U}(r<R)}{\Phi (r<R)}=

854: \frac{\delta \Phi _{U}(r=R)}{\Phi (r=R)}$.

855: There is practically no loss of numerical accuracy in this

856: approximation since a typical scale for the variation of

857: $\delta \Phi _{U}/\Phi$ is given by the electron Compton length

858: $\frac{\hbar}{mc}>>R$.

859: 

860: Since  $Z\alpha=0.4 $ is not so small for Cs it is important to estimate

861: the contribution of the higher-order in $Z\alpha$ vacuum-polarization

862: correction (the Wichmann-Kroll term \cite{kroll}). For simplicity we use

863: an approximate expression for this potential

864: \begin{equation}

865: \label{eq:WK}

866: 	\delta \Phi _{WK} = -\frac{2}{3}\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \,

867: 	\frac{0.092 Z^2 \alpha^2}{1+\big(\frac{1.62r}{\alpha}\big)^4}\Phi

868: \end{equation}

869: which is exact at small and large distances (a small-$r$ asymptotic was

870: presented in Refs. \cite{milstein83,milstein}).

871: We have found that the contribution of this potential to the $s$-wave

872: energies is $\sim 30$ times smaller than that of the Uehling potential.

873: The contribution of the Uehling potential $\delta \Phi _{U}$ to the Lamb

874: shift is always small (less than 15\%). Note that the contribution

875: of the radiative corrections to the electron core electrostatic

876: potential can be estimated using the semiclassical expression

877: for  ${\hat \Sigma}_{\rm rad} ({\bf r},{\bf r}',E)$

878: presented in Ref. \cite{zelevinsky}. This contribution

879: for $s$-levels is two orders of magnitude smaller than

880: that of the nuclear potential

881: (for higher angular momenta the nuclear contribution is small and

882: the electron contribution is relatively important).

883: 

884: The potential $\delta \Phi _{g}$ due to the magnetic form factor

885: is a long-range one.

886: This also hints that there are no large higher $Z\alpha$

887: corrections here. The contribution of this potential to the Lamb shift

888: is about 30\% for $s$-levels and 70\% for $p$-levels.

889: Note that for the term $\delta \Phi _{f}$ and the total Lamb-shift

890: we do not use the assumption $Z\alpha <<1$ since we fitted the exact results

891: for the single-electron ions.

892: 

893: The radiative corrections for Cs energy levels are presented

894: in Table~\ref{tab:radenergies}.

895: 

896: Now we  discuss the contribution of

897: QED-type radiative corrections to the electron wave function

898: and  PNC amplitude $E_{PNC}$.

899: Note that it is not enough to calculate the radiative corrections to

900: the matrix element of the weak interaction

901: $\langle n'p_{1/2}|\hat{H}_{W}|ns\rangle$.

902: Corrections to the energy intervals like $6s-6p$  are also important

903: since these intervals are small at the scale of the atomic unit

904: ($ \sim 1/20$) and sensitive to perturbations.

905: The change in the energies also influences the large-distance behavior

906: of the electron wave functions which determine the usual

907: E1 amplitudes in the sum-over-states approach.

908: If we keep only three dominating terms in the sum-over-states approach

909: (see below) the contributions of the energy shifts (-0.29 \%)

910: and corrections to the amplitudes (0.33\%) cancel each other.

911: The simplest way to find the total answer (including

912: the corrections to the weak matrix elements) is to include $\delta \Phi$

913: into the relativistic Hartree-Fock equations and

914: then perform all calculations.

915: 

916: The results are the following:

917: the largest contribution to $E_{PNC}$ comes from the Uehling

918: potential $\delta \Phi _{U}$. It increases $E_{PNC}$ by

919: $0.41\%$ (in agreement with \cite{johnson01,milstein}).

920: The contribution of $\delta \Phi _{g}$ is  $-0.03 \%$

921: (due to cancellation of the contributions of the corrections

922: to the $s$-wave and $p$-wave); the Wichmann-Kroll contribution is

923: $-0.006\%$. Note that the latter contribution can be estimated

924: analytically using Eq.~(\ref{psirad}). The ratio of the Wichmann-Kroll

925: contribution to the Uehling contribution in the logarithmic approximation is

926: $-0.184~Z^2\alpha^2/\ln (\lambda /R)$.

927: 

928: The contribution of $\delta \Phi _{f}$ is well-defined only when

929: it originates from large distances (due to the shift of the energy levels

930: and the large-distance behavior of the electronic wave function

931: which influences electromagnetic amplitudes). A small-distance

932: contribution is not gauge-invariant and should be treated simultaneously

933: with the correction to the Z-boson exchange vertex

934: \cite{milstein}. Therefore, we deliberately selected a non-singular

935: parametric potential (\ref{param}) to approximate $\delta \Phi _{f}$.

936: This potential does not generate any singular

937: (in nuclear radius $R$)  contributions proportional to the large

938: parameter $ \ln (\lambda /R)$. This means that the subject

939: of our discussion now is different from the radiative corrections

940:  to the weak matrix element considered by Milstein and Sushkov

941: in \cite{milstein}. They were interested in contributions

942: enhanced by this large parameter $ \ln (\lambda /R)$.

943: 

944: The main contribution to the Lamb shift comes from the distances

945: $r < 1/Z$ (in atomic units). This corresponds to the parameter

946: $b>Z\alpha $ in the potential (\ref{param}). On the other hand

947: a typical distance for the radiative corrections

948: is $r \sim \lambda=\frac{\hbar}{mc}$. Therefore, to estimate

949: the contribution of $\delta \Phi _{f}$ we performed calculations

950: for two extreme values of the parameters $b=1$ and $b=Z\alpha $

951: (the values of the Lamb shifts are kept the same in both cases

952: by selecting appropriate values of the parameter $A$).

953: For $b=1 $ this contribution is $-0.2\%$. For  $b=Z\alpha $

954: it is -0.08\%. This gives us an indication that the large-distance

955: contribution to the radiative corrections to

956: $E_{PNC}$ is small. On the other hand, according to Sushkov and

957: Milstein \cite{milstein}, the small-distance

958: contribution to $E_{PNC}$ is dominated by the Uehling

959: potential which was considered above.

960: 

961: %*****************************************************************

962: \section{Estimate of accuracy of PNC amplitude}

963: \label{sec:accuracy}

964: 

965: 

966: We have estimated the error of the PNC amplitude in a number of different

967: ways. There are two main methods:

968: (i) root-mean-square (rms) deviation of the calculated energy intervals,

969: E1 amplitudes, and hyperfine structure constants

970: from the accurate experimental values;

971: (ii) influence of fitting of energies and hyperfine structure

972: constants on the PNC amplitude.

973: 

974: \subsection{Root-mean-square deviation}

975: 

976: Remember that the PNC amplitude can be expressed as a sum over

977: intermediate states (see formula~(\ref{sum})).

978: Each term in the sum is a product of E1 transition amplitudes,

979: weak matrix elements, and energy denominators.

980: There are three dominating contributions to the $6s-7s$ PNC amplitude

981: in Cs:

982: \begin{eqnarray}

983: E_{PNC}&=&

984: \label{sumcs}

985: \frac{\langle 7s|\hat{H}_{E1}|6p\rangle \langle 6p|\hat{H}_{W}|6s\rangle}

986: {E_{6s}-E_{6p}} +

987: \frac{\langle 7s|\hat{H}_{W}|6p\rangle \langle 6p|\hat{H}_{E1}|6s\rangle}

988: {E_{7s}-E_{6p}}+

989: \frac{\langle 7s|\hat{H}_{E1}|7p\rangle \langle 7p|\hat{H}_{W}|6s\rangle}

990: {E_{6s}-E_{7p}}+...

991: \nonumber \\

992: &=& -1.908+1.493+1.352+...=0.937 +... \

993: \end{eqnarray}

994: (the numbers are from the work \cite{blundell90}

995: where the sum-over-states method was used;

996: here we just demonstrate that these terms dominate).

997: While we do not use the sum-over-states approach in our calculation of

998: the PNC amplitude, it is instructive to analyze the accuracy of

999: the E1 transition amplitudes, weak matrix elements, and

1000: energy intervals which contribute to Eq.~(\ref{sumcs}) as

1001: they have been calculated using the same method as that used to

1002: calculate $E_{PNC}$.

1003: 

1004: Let us begin with the energy intervals.

1005: The calculated removal energies are presented in Table~\ref{tab:energies}.

1006: The Hartree-Fock values deviate from experiment by $10\%$.

1007: Including the second-order correlation corrections ${\hat \Sigma} ^{(2)}$

1008: reduces the error to $\sim 1\%$.

1009: When screening and the hole-particle interaction are included into

1010: ${\hat \Sigma} ^{(2)}$ in all orders,

1011: the energies improve, $\sim 0.3\%$.

1012: The percentage deviations from experiment of the energy intervals of interest

1013: are: $E_{6s}-E_{6p}$, $0.3$; $E_{7s}-E_{6p}$, $0.4$;

1014: and $E_{6s}-E_{7p}$, $0.3$. The rms error is $0.3\%$.

1015: We can in fact reproduce energy intervals exactly by placing coefficients

1016: before the correlation potential. We will use this procedure as another

1017: test of the stability of the results. Note, however, that the accuracy for

1018: the energies is already very high and the remaining discrepancy with

1019: experiment is of the same order of magnitude as the Breit and radiative

1020: corrections. Therefore, generally speaking, we should not expect that

1021: fitting of the energy will always improve the results for amplitudes and

1022: hyperfine structure. In fact, as we will see below, some values do improve

1023: while others do not. The overall accuracy, however, remains at the same level.

1024: 

1025: The relevant E1 transition amplitudes (radial integrals) are presented in

1026: Table~\ref{tab:e1i}.

1027: These were calculated with the energy-fitted ``bare'' correlation

1028: potential $\hat{\Sigma}^{(2)}$ and the (unfitted and fitted)

1029: ``dressed'' potential $\hat{\Sigma}$.

1030: Structural radiation and normalization contributions were also

1031: included.

1032: In Table~\ref{tab:e1ii} the percentage deviations of

1033: the calculated values from experiment are listed.

1034: Without energy fitting, the rms error is $0.1\%$.

1035: Fitting the energy gives a rms error of $0.2\%$ for $\hat{\Sigma}^{(2)}$

1036: and $0.3\%$ for the complete $\hat{\Sigma}$.

1037: 

1038: We cannot directly compare weak matrix elements with experiment.

1039: Like the weak matrix elements, hyperfine structure is determined

1040: by the electron wave functions in the vicinity of the nucleus,

1041: and this is known very accurately.

1042: The hyperfine structure constants calculated in different approximations

1043: are presented in Table~\ref{tab:hfsi}.

1044: Corrections due to the Breit interaction, structural radiation,  and

1045: normalization are included.

1046: The percentage deviations from experiment are shown in

1047: Table~\ref{tab:hfsii}.

1048: The rms deviation of the calculated hfs values from experiment

1049: using the unfitted ${\hat \Sigma}$ is $0.5\%$.

1050: With fitting, the rms error in the pure second-order approximation is $0.3\%$;

1051: with higher orders we get $0.4\%$.

1052: We are, however, trying to estimate the accuracy of the $s-p$ weak

1053: matrix elements. It seems reasonable for us to use the square-root

1054: formula, $\sqrt{{\rm hfs}(s){\rm hfs}(p)}$.

1055: The errors are presented in Table~\ref{tab:hfsii}.

1056: Notice that by using this approach the error is smaller.

1057: Without energy fitting, the rms error is $0.5\%$.

1058: With fitting, the rms error in the second-order calculation

1059: ($\hat{\Sigma} ^{(2)}$) is $0.2\%$ and in the full calculation

1060: ($\hat{\Sigma}$) it is $0.3\%$.

1061: 

1062: From this section we can conclude that the rms error for the relevant

1063: parameters is $0.5\%$ or better.

1064: 

1065: Note that from this analysis the error for the sum-over-states

1066: calculation of $E_{PNC}$ would be larger than this, as

1067: the errors for the energies, hfs constants, and E1 amplitudes

1068: contribute to each of the three terms in Eq.~(\ref{sumcs}).

1069: However, in the mixed-states approach, the errors do not add in this

1070: way.

1071: We get a better indication of the error of our calculation

1072: of $E_{PNC}$ in the next section.

1073: 

1074: 

1075: \subsection{Influence of fitting on the PNC amplitude}

1076: 

1077: In the section above we presented calculations in three different

1078: approximations:

1079: with unfitted $\hat{\Sigma}$,

1080: and with $\hat{\Sigma}^{(2)}$ and $\hat{\Sigma}$ fitted with

1081: coefficients to reproduce experimental removal energies.

1082: The errors in these approximations are of different magnitudes and signs.

1083: We now calculate the PNC amplitude using these three approximations.

1084: The spread of the results can be used to estimate the error.

1085: 

1086: The results are listed in Table~\ref{tab:pncii}.

1087: It can be seen that the PNC amplitude is very stable.

1088: The PNC amplitude is much more stable than hyperfine structure.

1089: This can be explained by the much smaller correlation corrections

1090: to $E_{PNC}$ ($\sim 2\%$ for $E_{PNC}$ and $\sim 30\%$ for hfs;

1091: compare Table~\ref{tab:pnci} with Table~\ref{tab:hfsi}).

1092: One can say that this small value of the correlation correction is

1093: a result of cancellation of different terms in (\ref{eq:pnc-cor})

1094: but each term is not small (see Table~\ref{tab:pnci}). However,

1095: this cancellation has a regular behavior. The same correlation

1096: potential $\hat \Sigma$ is used to calculate energies and correlation

1097: corrections (\ref{eq:pnc-cor}) to $E_{PNC}$. Therefore, whatever

1098: way is used to calculate $\hat \Sigma$, if the accuracy for energies

1099: is good, the correlation correction (\ref{eq:pnc-cor}) is stable.

1100: The stability of $E_{PNC}$ may be compared to the stability of the

1101: usual electromagnetic amplitudes where the error is very small

1102: (even without fitting).

1103: 

1104: We have also considered the fitting of hyperfine structure using

1105: different coefficients before each $\hat{\Sigma}$.

1106: The first-order in $\hat{\Sigma}$ correlation correction (\ref{eq:pnc-cor})

1107: changes by about $10\%$. This changes the PNC amplitude

1108: by about $0.4\%$.

1109: 

1110: \vspace{5mm}

1111: 

1112: It is also instructive to look at the spread of $E_{PNC}$ obtained

1113: in different schemes.

1114: (This has already been discussed in some detail in

1115: Section~\ref{sec:results}.)

1116: The result of the present work is in excellent agreement with our earlier

1117: result \cite{dzuba89} while the calculation scheme is significantly different.

1118: The only other calculation of the $E_{PNC}$ in Cs which is as

1119: complete as ours is that of Blundell {\it et al.} \cite{blundell90}.

1120: Their result in the all-orders sum-over-states approach is 0.909

1121: (without Breit) and is very close to our value of 0.908

1122: (corresponding to ``Subtotal'' of Table~\ref{tab:pnci}).

1123: Our result (0.904) obtained in second-order with fitting of the energies

1124: is useful in determining the accuracy of the calculations of $E_{PNC}$.

1125: (Remember that this value is in agreement with results of similar

1126: calculations performed in \cite{blundell90,kozlov01}; see

1127: Section~\ref{sec:results}.) One can see that replacing

1128: the all-order $\hat \Sigma$ by its very rough second-order (with fitting)

1129: approximation changes $E_{PNC}$ by less than 0.4\% only. On the other hand,

1130: if the higher orders are included accurately, the difference between the

1131: two very different approaches is 0.1\% only.

1132: 

1133: The maximum deviation we have obtained in the above analysis is

1134: $0.5\%$. We will therefore use this as our estimate for the

1135: uncertainty of the $E_{PNC}$ calculation.

1136: 

1137: We do not include the error associated with the radiative corrections

1138: into the estimate of the accuracy since the large-distance

1139: ($r>\lambda$) contribution of the radiative corrections is small

1140: and the small-distance contribution ($R\lesssim r<\lambda$)

1141: enhanced by $\ln (\lambda/R)$ can be accurately calculated.

1142: 

1143: %*****************************************************************

1144: \section{Conclusion}

1145: 

1146: We have obtained the result

1147: \begin{equation}

1148: E_{PNC}=0.904\Big(1\pm 0.5\%\Big) \times 10^{-11}iea_{B}(-Q_{W}/N)

1149: \end{equation}

1150: for our calculation of the $6s-7s$ PNC amplitude in Cs.

1151: This is in agreement with other PNC calculations,

1152: however we would like to emphasize that our calculation is

1153: the most complete.

1154: The most precise measurement of the $6s-7s$ PNC amplitude in Cs

1155: is \cite{wood97}

1156: \begin{equation}

1157: -\frac{{\rm Im} (E_{PNC})}{\beta}=1.5939(56)\frac{\rm mV}{\rm cm} \ ,

1158: \end{equation}

1159: where $\beta$ is the vector transition polarizability.

1160: There are currently two very precise values for $\beta$. One value

1161: \begin{equation}

1162: \label{eq:beta1}

1163: \beta =26.957(51) a_{B}^{3}

1164: \end{equation}

1165: was obtained in our analysis \cite{dzuba00} of the Bennett and Wieman

1166: measurements \cite{wieman99} of the

1167: $M1_{\rm hfs}/\beta$ ratio \cite{bouchiat88}.

1168: We have obtained another value

1169: \begin{equation}

1170: \label{eq:beta2}

1171: \beta =27.15(11) a_{B}^{3}

1172: \end{equation}

1173: from the measurement \cite{cho97} of $\alpha/\beta$ and

1174: an analysis, similar to that of Ref. \cite{dzuba97}, using

1175: the most accurate experimental data for the E1 transition amplitudes

1176: including recent measurements of Vasilyev {\it et al.} \cite{vasilyev01}.

1177: The errors in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:beta1},\ref{eq:beta2}) are obtained by adding

1178: in quadrature the experimental and theoretical errors.

1179: Notice that the central point of our value (Eq.~(\ref{eq:beta2}))

1180: differs slightly from the value  $27.22(11)$ obtained in the work

1181: \cite{vasilyev01}.

1182: Note also that the value (\ref{eq:beta2}) coincides

1183: with the value presented in \cite{dzuba97} which was obtained with slightly

1184: different E1 amplitudes. This is because of an accidental cancellation of

1185: the changes to different terms.

1186: 

1187: Using the conversion $|e|/a_{B}^{2}=5.1422\times 10^{12}{\rm mV}/{\rm cm}$,

1188: we therefore obtain for the weak charge of the Cs nucleus

1189: with $\beta =26.957$:

1190: \begin{equation}

1191: \label{eq:q1}

1192: Q_{W}=-72.09(29)_{\rm exp}(36)_{\rm theor} \ ,

1193: \end{equation}

1194: or with $\beta =27.15$

1195: \begin{equation}

1196: \label{eq:q2}

1197: Q_{W}=-72.60(39)_{\rm exp}(36)_{\rm theor} \ ,

1198: \end{equation}

1199: where the experimental error is obtained by adding in quadrature the

1200: error for $\beta$ and the error for ${\rm Im}(E_{PNC})/\beta$.

1201: 

1202: If we take an average value for $\beta$

1203: \begin{equation}

1204: 	\label{eq:beta3}

1205: 	\beta =26.99(5) a_{B}^{3}

1206: \end{equation}

1207: then

1208: \begin{equation}

1209: \label{eq:q3}

1210: Q_{W}=-72.18(29)_{\rm exp}(36)_{\rm theor} \ .

1211: \end{equation}

1212: 

1213: These results (Eqs.~(\ref{eq:q1},\ref{eq:q2},\ref{eq:q3})) deviate by

1214: $2.2\sigma$, $0.9\sigma$ and $2.0\sigma$, respectively, from

1215: the standard model value $Q_{W}= -73.09(3)$ \cite{groom00}

1216: (note that the standard deviations $\sigma$ are different

1217: in each case).

1218: 

1219: 

1220: \acknowledgments

1221: 

1222: We are grateful to A. Milstein, O. Sushkov, and M. Kuchiev for

1223: useful discussions.

1224: This work was supported by the Australian Research Council.

1225: 

1226: %************************************************************

1227: \begin{thebibliography}{20}

1228: 

1229: \bibitem{khriplovich}

1230: 

1231: I.B. Khriplovich, {\it Parity Nonconservation in Atomic Phenomena}

1232: (Gordon and Breach, Philadelphia, 1991).

1233: 

1234: \bibitem{bouchiat}

1235: 

1236: M.-A. Bouchiat and C. Bouchiat, Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 60},

1237: 1351 (1997).

1238: 

1239: \bibitem{wood97}

1240: 

1241: C.S. Wood {\it et al.}, Science {\bf 275}, 1759 (1997).

1242: 

1243: \bibitem{dzuba89}

1244: 

1245: V.A. Dzuba, V.V. Flambaum, and O.P. Sushkov,

1246: Phys. Lett. A {\bf 141}, 147 (1989).

1247: 

1248: \bibitem{blundell90}

1249: 

1250: S.A. Blundell, W.R. Johnson, and J. Sapirstein,

1251: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65}, 1411 (1990);

1252: S.A. Blundell, J. Sapirstein, and W.R. Johnson,

1253: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 45}, 1602 (1992).

1254: 

1255: \bibitem{rafac}

1256: 

1257: R.J. Rafac, and C.E. Tanner, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 58} 1087 (1998);

1258: R.J. Rafac, C.E. Tanner, A.E. Livingston, and H.G. Berry,

1259: Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 60} 3648 (1999).

1260: 

1261: \bibitem{bennett99}

1262: 

1263: S.C. Bennett, J.L. Roberts, and C.E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 59},

1264: R16 (1999).

1265: 

1266: \bibitem{wieman99}

1267: 

1268: S.C. Bennett and C.E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82},

1269: 2484 (1999); {\bf 82}, 4153(E) (1999); {\bf 83}, 889(E) (1999).

1270: 

1271: \bibitem{RC}

1272: 

1273: R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, D. Dominici, and R. Gatto,

1274: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 460}, 135 (1999).

1275: 

1276: \bibitem{JR}

1277: 

1278: J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 016006 (1999).

1279: 

1280: \bibitem{EL}

1281: 

1282: J. Erler and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. Letts. {\bf 84}, 212 (2000).

1283: 

1284: \bibitem{derevianko00}

1285: 

1286: A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 1618 (2000).

1287: 

1288: \bibitem{harabati}

1289: 

1290: V.A. Dzuba, C. Harabati, W.R. Johnson, and M.S. Safronova,

1291: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 63}, 044103 (2001).

1292: 

1293: \bibitem{kozlov01}

1294: 

1295: M.G. Kozlov, S.G. Porsev, and I.I. Tupitsyn,

1296: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 3260 (2001).

1297: 

1298: \bibitem{marciano}

1299: 

1300: W.J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 27}, 552 (1983);

1301: W.J. Marciano and J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65}, 2963 (1990).

1302: 

1303: \bibitem{lynnbed}

1304: 

1305: B.W. Lynn and P.G.H. Sandars, J. Phys. B. {\bf 27}, 1469 (1994);

1306: I. Bednyakov {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 61}, 012103 (1999).

1307: 

1308: \bibitem{milstein}

1309: 

1310: A.I. Milstein and O.P. Sushkov, e-print hep-ph/0109257.

1311: 

1312: \bibitem{johnson01}

1313: 

1314: W.R. Johnson, I. Bednyakov, and G. Soff,

1315: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 233001 (2001).

1316: 

1317: \bibitem{derevianko}

1318: 

1319: A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 65}, 012106 (2002).

1320: 

1321: \bibitem{dzuba00}

1322: 

1323: V.A. Dzuba and V.V. Flambaum,

1324: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 62}, 052101 (2000).

1325: 

1326: \bibitem{dzuba97}

1327: 

1328: V.A. Dzuba, V.V. Flambaum, and O.P. Sushkov,

1329: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 56}, R4357 (1997).

1330: 

1331: \bibitem{groom00}

1332: 

1333: D.E. Groom {\it et al.},

1334: Euro. Phys. J. C {\bf 15}, 1 (2000).

1335: 

1336: \bibitem{dzuba87}

1337: 

1338: V.A. Dzuba, V.V. Flambaum, P.G. Silvestrov, and O.P. Sushkov,

1339: J. Phys. B {\bf 20}, 1399 (1987).

1340: 

1341: \bibitem{dzuba89energy}

1342: 

1343: V.A. Dzuba, V.V. Flambaum, and O.P. Sushkov,

1344: Phys. Lett. A {\bf 140}, 493 (1989).

1345: 

1346: \bibitem{dzuba89e1hfs}

1347: 

1348: V.A. Dzuba, V.V. Flambaum, A.Ya. Kraftmakher, and O.P. Sushkov,

1349: Phys. Lett. A {\bf 142}, 373 (1989).

1350: 

1351: %\bibitem{dzuba}

1352: %

1353: %V.A. Dzuba, in preparation.

1354: 

1355: %-------------

1356: %proton distrn

1357: 

1358: \bibitem{fricke95}

1359: 

1360: G. Fricke {\it et al.},

1361: At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables {\bf 60}, 177 (1995).

1362: 

1363: %-------------

1364: %neutron distrn

1365: 

1366: \bibitem{r_{np}}

1367: 

1368: A. Trzci\'{n}ska {\it et al.},

1369: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 082501 (2001).

1370: 

1371: \bibitem{berestetskii}

1372: 

1373: V.B. Berestetskii, E.M. Lifshitz, and L.P. Pitaevskii,

1374: {\it Relativistic Quantum Theory}

1375: (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1982).

1376: 

1377: \bibitem{mohr}

1378: 

1379: P.J. Mohr and Y.-K. Kim, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 45}, 2727 (1992);

1380: P.J. Mohr, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 46}, 4421 (1992).

1381: 

1382: \bibitem{fullerton76}

1383: 

1384: L.W. Fullerton and G.A. Rinker, Jr., Phys. Rev. A {\bf 13},

1385: 1283 (1976).

1386: 

1387: \bibitem{kroll}

1388: 

1389: E.H. Wichmann and N.M. Kroll,

1390: Phys. Rev. {\bf 101}, 343 (1956).

1391: 

1392: \bibitem{milstein83}

1393: 

1394: A.I. Milstein and V.M. Strakhovenko,

1395: ZhETF {\bf 84}, 1247 (1983).

1396: 

1397: \bibitem{zelevinsky}

1398: 

1399: V.V. Flambaum and V.G. Zelevinsky,

1400: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 3108 (1999).

1401: 

1402: %------------------

1403: % energies

1404: 

1405: \bibitem{moore}

1406: 

1407: C.E. Moore, Natl. Stand. Ref. Data Ser.

1408: (U.S., Natl. Bur. Stand.), {\bf 3} (1971).

1409: 

1410: %------------------

1411: % radial integrals

1412: 

1413: \bibitem{rafac99}

1414: 

1415: R.J. Rafac, C.E. Tanner, A.E. Livingston, and H.G. Berry,

1416: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 60}, 3648 (1999).

1417: 

1418: \bibitem{bouchiat84}

1419: 

1420: M.-A. Bouchiat, J. Gu\'{e}na, and L. Pottier,

1421: J. Phys. (France) Lett. {\bf 45}, L523 (1984).

1422: 

1423: %------------------

1424: % hfs

1425: 

1426: \bibitem{cshfs}

1427: 

1428: E. Arimondo, M. Inguscio, and P. Violino,

1429: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 49}, 31 (1977).

1430: 

1431: \bibitem{gilbert83}

1432: 

1433: S.L. Gilbert, R.N. Watts, and C.E. Wieman,

1434: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 27}, 581 (1983).

1435: 

1436: \bibitem{rafac97}

1437: 

1438: R.J. Rafac and C.E. Tanner, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 56}, 1027 (1997).

1439: 

1440: %---------------------

1441: 

1442: \bibitem{bouchiat88}

1443: 

1444: M.-A. Bouchiat and J. Gu\'{e}na, J. Phys. (France) {\bf 49},

1445: 2037 (1988).

1446: 

1447: \bibitem{cho97}

1448: 

1449: D. Cho {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 55}, 1007 (1997).

1450: 

1451: \bibitem{vasilyev01}

1452: 

1453: A.A. Vasilyev, I.M. Savukov, M.S. Safronova, and H.G. Berry,

1454: e-print physics/0112071.

1455: 

1456: 

1457: \end{thebibliography}

1458: 

1459: %************************************************************

1460: \begin{table}

1461: \caption{Contributions to the $6s-7s$ $E_{PNC}$ amplitude

1462: for Cs in units $10^{-11}iea_{B}(-Q_{W}/N)$.

1463: ($\hat{\Sigma}$ corresponds to the (unfitted) ``dressed''

1464: self-energy operator.) }

1465: \label{tab:pnci}

1466: \begin{tabular}{ld}

1467: TDHF & 0.8898 \\

1468: $\langle \psi _{7s}|\hat \Sigma_s(\epsilon_{7s})|\delta X_{6s}\rangle$

1469: & 0.0773 \\

1470: $\langle \delta\psi _{7s}|\hat \Sigma_p(\epsilon_{7s})|X_{6s}\rangle$

1471: & 0.1799 \\

1472: $\langle \delta Y_{7s}|\hat \Sigma_s(\epsilon_{6s})|\psi_{6s}\rangle$

1473: & -0.0810 \\

1474: $\langle Y_{7s}|\hat \Sigma_p(\epsilon_{6s})|\delta \psi_{6s}\rangle$

1475: & -0.1369 \\

1476: Nonlinear in $\hat{\Sigma}$ correction & -0.0214 \\

1477: Weak correlation potential & 0.0038 \\

1478: Structural radiation & 0.0029 \\

1479: Normalization & -0.0066 \\

1480:  & \\

1481: Subtotal & 0.9078 \\

1482:  & \\

1483: Breit & -0.0055 \\

1484: Neutron distribution & -0.0018 \\

1485: Radiative corrections & 0.0036 \\

1486:  & \\

1487: Total & 0.9041 \\

1488: \end{tabular}

1489: \end{table}

1490: %****************************************************************

1491: \begin{table}

1492: \caption{Radiative corrections to RHF removal energies; units cm$^{-1}$.

1493: (See also Table~\ref{tab:energies}.) }

1494: \label{tab:radenergies}

1495: \begin{tabular}{dddd}

1496: $6s$ & $7s$ & $6p_{1/2}$ & $7p_{1/2}$ \\

1497: \hline

1498: 

1499: -18.4 & -5.0 & 0.88 & 0.31 \\

1500: \end{tabular}

1501: \end{table}

1502: %**********************************************************

1503: \begin{table}

1504: \caption{Removal energies for Cs in units cm$^{-1}$.}

1505: \label{tab:energies}

1506: \begin{tabular}{lllll}

1507: State & RHF & $\hat{\Sigma} ^{(2)}$ & $\hat{\Sigma}$ &

1508: Experiment \tablenotemark[1]\\

1509: \hline

1510: $6s$ & 27954 & 32415 & 31492 & 31407 \\

1511: $7s$ & 12112 & 13070 & 12893 & 12871 \\

1512: $6p_{1/2}$ & 18790 & 20539 & 20280 & 20228 \\

1513: $7p_{1/2}$ & 9223 & 9731 & 9663 & 9641 \\

1514: \end{tabular}

1515: \tablenotetext[1]{Taken from \cite{moore}.}

1516: \end{table}

1517: %************************************************************

1518: \begin{table}

1519: \caption{Radial integrals of E1 transition amplitudes for Cs in

1520: different approximations. The experimental values are listed in

1521: the last column. (a.u.)}

1522: \label{tab:e1i}

1523: \begin{tabular}{ldddddd}

1524: Transition & RHF& TDHF & $\hat{\Sigma} ^{(2)}$ &

1525: $\hat{\Sigma}$ & $\hat{\Sigma}$ & Experiment \\

1526:        &      &              & with fitting &           & with fitting &

1527:  \\

1528: \hline

1529: $6s-6p$ & 6.464 & 6.093 & 5.499 & 5.497 & 5.509 &

1530: 5.497(8) \tablenotemark[1] \\

1531: $7s-6p$ & 5.405 & 5.450 & 5.198 & 5.190 & 5.204 &

1532: 5.185(27) \tablenotemark[2]\\

1533: $7s-7p$ & 13.483 & 13.376 & 12.602 & 12.601 & 12.612 &

1534: 12.625(18) \tablenotemark[3] \\

1535: \end{tabular}

1536: \tablenotetext[1]{Ref. \cite{rafac99}.}

1537: \tablenotetext[2]{Ref. \cite{bouchiat84}.}

1538: \tablenotetext[3]{Ref. \cite{bennett99}.}

1539: \end{table}

1540: %************************************************************

1541: \begin{table}

1542: \caption{Percentage deviation from experiment of calculated

1543: E1 transition amplitudes in different approximations.}

1544: \label{tab:e1ii}

1545: \begin{tabular}{lddd}

1546: Transition &

1547: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Percentage deviation} \\

1548:  & $\hat{\Sigma}^{(2)}$ & $\hat{\Sigma}$ & $\hat{\Sigma}$ \\

1549:  & with fitting    &          & with fitting \\

1550: \hline

1551: $6s-6p$ & 0.04 &  0.0 &  0.2 \\

1552: $7s-6p$ &  0.3 &  0.1 &  0.4 \\

1553: $7s-7p$ & -0.2 & -0.2 & -0.1 \\

1554: \end{tabular}

1555: \end{table}

1556: %************************************************************

1557: \begin{table}

1558: \caption{Calculations of the hyperfine structure of Cs

1559: in different approximations. In the last column the experimental

1560: values are listed. Units: MHz.}

1561: \label{tab:hfsi}

1562: \begin{tabular}{ldddddd}

1563: State & RHF & TDHF & $\hat{\Sigma} ^{(2)}$ &

1564: $\hat{\Sigma}$ & $\hat{\Sigma}$ & Experiment \\

1565:        &    &     & with fitting &      & with fitting & \\

1566: \hline

1567: $6s$ & 1425.0 & 1717.5 & 2306.9 & 2315.0 & 2300.3 &

1568: 2298.2 \tablenotemark[1] \\

1569: $7s$ & 391.6 & 471.1 & 544.4 & 545.3 & 543.8 &

1570: 545.90(9) \tablenotemark[2] \\

1571: $6p_{1/2}$ & 160.9 & 200.3 & 291.5 & 293.6 & 290.5 &

1572: 291.89(8) \tablenotemark[3] \\

1573: $7p_{1/2}$ & 57.6 & 71.2 & 94.3 & 94.8 & 94.1 &

1574: 94.35 \tablenotemark[1] \\

1575: \end{tabular}

1576: \tablenotetext[1]{Ref. \cite{cshfs}.}

1577: \tablenotetext[2]{Ref. \cite{gilbert83}.}

1578: \tablenotetext[3]{Ref. \cite{rafac97}.}

1579: \end{table}

1580: %************************************************************

1581: \begin{table}

1582: \caption{Percentage deviation from experiment of calculated

1583: hyperfine structure constants in different approximations.}

1584: \label{tab:hfsii}

1585: \begin{tabular}{ldddd}

1586: State &

1587: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Percentage deviation} \\

1588:  & $\hat{\Sigma}^{(2)}$ & $\hat{\Sigma}$ & $\hat{\Sigma}$ \\

1589:  & with fitting    &          & with fitting \\

1590: \hline

1591: $6s$       &  0.4 &  0.7 &  0.09 \\

1592: $7s$       & -0.3 & -0.1 & -0.4 \\

1593: $6p_{1/2}$ & -0.1 &  0.6 & -0.5 \\

1594: $7p_{1/2}$ & -0.05 & 0.5 & -0.3 \\

1595: \end{tabular}

1596: \end{table}

1597: %****************************************************************

1598: \begin{table}

1599: \caption{Percentage deviation from experiment of calculated

1600: $\sqrt{{\rm hfs}(s){\rm hfs}(p)}$ (we will denote this by $s-p$ in

1601: the tables) in different approximations.}

1602: \label{tab:hfsiii}

1603: \begin{tabular}{lddd}

1604: $\sqrt{{\rm hfs}(s){\rm hfs}(p)}$&\multicolumn{3}{c}{Percentage deviation}\\

1605:  & $\hat{\Sigma} ^{(2)}$ & $\hat{\Sigma}$ & $\hat{\Sigma}$ \\

1606:  & with fitting    &          & with fitting \\

1607: \hline

1608: $6s-6p$ &  0.1 &  0.7 & -0.2 \\

1609: $6s-7p$ &  0.2 &  0.6 & -0.09 \\

1610: $7s-6p$ & -0.2 &  0.2 & -0.4 \\

1611: \end{tabular}

1612: \end{table}

1613: %****************************************************************

1614: \begin{table}

1615: \caption{Values for $E_{PNC}$ in different approximations;

1616: units $10^{-11}iea_{B}(-Q_{W}/N)$.}

1617: \label{tab:pncii}

1618: \begin{tabular}{cddd}

1619:  & $\hat{\Sigma}^{(2)}$ with fitting & $\hat{\Sigma}$ &

1620: $\hat{\Sigma}$ with fitting \\

1621: \hline

1622: $E_{PNC}$ & 0.901 & 0.904 & 0.903 \\

1623: \end{tabular}

1624: \end{table}

1625: %****************************************************************

1626: 

1627: \center

1628: \widetext

1629: \input psfig

1630: \psfull

1631: 

1632: \begin{figure}[b]

1633: \centerline{\psfig{file=Sigma2.eps,clip=}}

1634: \caption{Second-order (a) direct and (b) exchange correlation diagrams

1635: in the Feynman diagram technique.

1636: Dashed line is the Coulomb interaction.

1637: Loop is the polarization of the atomic core.}

1638: \label{fig:Sigma2}

1639: \end{figure}

1640: 

1641: \begin{figure}[b]

1642: \centerline{\psfig{file=hpchain.eps, clip=}}

1643: \caption{Hole-particle interaction in the polarization operator.}

1644: \label{fig:h-p}

1645: \end{figure}

1646: 

1647: \begin{figure}[b]

1648: \centerline{\psfig{file=Sigmad.eps,clip=}}

1649: \caption{Screening of the Coulomb interaction

1650: in the direct correlation diagram.}

1651: \label{fig:Sigmad}

1652: \end{figure}

1653: 

1654: \begin{figure}[b]

1655: \centerline{\psfig{file=screeninghp.eps,clip=}}

1656: \caption{The screened Coulomb interaction

1657: (with hole-particle interaction).}

1658: \label{fig:screeninghp}

1659: \end{figure}

1660: 

1661: \begin{figure}[b]

1662: \centerline{\psfig{file=Sigmahpsc.eps, clip=}}

1663: \caption{The electron self-energy operator with screening and hole-particle

1664: interaction included.}

1665: \label{fig:Sigmahpsc}

1666: \end{figure}

1667: 

1668: \begin{figure}[b]

1669: \centerline{\psfig{file=pncdom.eps, clip=}}

1670: \caption{Lowest-order correlation corrections to the PNC E1 transition

1671: amplitude. Dashed line is the E1 field; cross is the nuclear weak field.}

1672: \label{fig:pncdom}

1673: \end{figure}

1674: 

1675: \begin{figure}[b]

1676: \centerline{\psfig{file=pncint.eps, clip=}}

1677: \caption{Small corrections to the PNC E1 transition amplitude:

1678: external field inside the correlation potential.

1679: In diagrams (a) the weak interaction is inside the

1680: correlation potential ($\delta \hat{\Sigma}$ denotes the change in

1681: $\hat{\Sigma}$ due to the weak interaction);

1682: this is known as the weak correlation potential.

1683: Diagrams (b) represent structural radiation

1684: (photon field inside the correlation potential).}

1685: \label{fig:pncint}

1686: \end{figure}

1687: 

1688: \begin{figure}[b]

1689: \centerline{\psfig{file=rad2.eps, clip=}}

1690: \caption{High-frequency contribution to radiative corrections.

1691: Diagram (a) corresponds to the Uehling potential.

1692: Diagram (b) is the vertex correction.

1693: The single solid line represents the bound electron;

1694: the double line is the free electron;

1695: the Coulomb interaction is denoted by the dashed line;

1696: and the filled circle denotes the nucleus.}

1697: \label{fig:rad}

1698: \end{figure}

1699: 

1700: \end{document}

1701: 

1702: 

1703: